feat: masternode payment reallocation from coin base to platform

[knst]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

It resolves this issue: https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/38

What was done?

Move some funds from the coinbase, into the Asset Lock Pool. 37.5% of current masternode reward are moved to platform.
beside that, evo MN will receive reward only once - not quad reward (4 time continously) as in v19.

This is to incentivize MNs to upgrade to platform, because only MNs running platform will get these migrated rewards

This PR depends on that should be merged before:

• feat!: add an implementation of DIP 0027 Credit Asset Locks #5026
• refactor: hide some payments methods, replace a class to namespace #5494
• feat: v20 evonodes payment adjustment #5493

How Has This Been Tested?

There were added couple new tests in feature_asset_lock.py that test functionality of credit_pool.py

To avoid conflicting with other tests, such as evo_deterministicmns_tests that is testing old behavior, activation height is chosen as far in future (3000 blocks) and not achieved by most of tests, include feature_asset_lock.py before all other functionality such as asset-unlocks are tested.

Breaking Changes

There are breaking changes, because it change consensus rules: changed CbTx output accordingly

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  need to update some DIP accordingly to that changes
• I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

[UdjinM6]

re-utACK

[ogabrielides]

LGTM

not sure about operator reward share

[UdjinM6]

It feels like with current implementation MN owners are "stealing" 37.5% from MN operators' share. EDIT: I guess it's inevitable cause otherwise you could trick the system by paying 100% to operator and 0 to platform.

[knst]

It feels like with current implementation MN owners are "stealing" 37.5% from MN operators' share. EDIT: I guess it's inevitable cause otherwise you could trick the system by paying 100% to operator and 0 to platform.

yes, platform reward is substracted before operator's reward calculation.
What if I will update calculation of operator reward like that? In this case it would be affected (stolen) operator's share only in extreme cases (such as 66%+ of operator reward) @UdjinM6

[thephez]

It feels like with current implementation MN owners are "stealing" 37.5% from MN operators' share. EDIT: I guess it's inevitable cause otherwise you could trick the system by paying 100% to operator and 0 to platform.

yes, platform reward is substracted before operator's reward calculation. What if I will update calculation of operator reward like that? In this case it would be affected (stolen) operator's share only in extreme cases (such as 66%+ of operator reward) @UdjinM6

Not sure I'm following the discussion correctly, but my understanding is that operators will be paid on platform side as well (just like owners) - see dashpay/platform#320. So if the concern here is that operators will miss out due to the partial movement of the block subsidy to platform, that shouldn't be an issue. We can confirm with platform team if necessary. Or, if I entirely misread the discussion, just ignore my comment 😄

[UdjinM6]

It feels like with current implementation MN owners are "stealing" 37.5% from MN operators' share. EDIT: I guess it's inevitable cause otherwise you could trick the system by paying 100% to operator and 0 to platform.

yes, platform reward is substracted before operator's reward calculation. What if I will update calculation of operator reward like that? In this case it would be affected (stolen) operator's share only in extreme cases (such as 66%+ of operator reward) @UdjinM6

Not sure I'm following the discussion correctly, but my understanding is that operators will be paid on platform side as well (just like owners) - see dashpay/platform#320. So if the concern here is that operators will miss out due to the partial movement of the block subsidy to platform, that shouldn't be an issue. We can confirm with platform team if necessary. Or, if I entirely misread the discussion, just ignore my comment 😄

Oh, wow! I didn't know that. Would be nice if someone from the Platform team could confirm that. @shumkov or maybe @QuantumExplorer?

[shumkov]

Yes, operators will be paid on platform side as well

[UdjinM6]

Yes, operators will be paid on platform side as well

Cool, thanks!

@knst I guess we can safely drop 286128d then.

[UdjinM6]

LGTM, utACK

[ogabrielides]

utACK

[PastaPastaPasta]

LGTM just need release notes

[ogabrielides]

LGTM

[PastaPastaPasta]

I tried to comment "utACK for merge via merge commit"

approved